Will the Belo Monte Dam project on the Amazon River cause more harm to the environment or will it be a good source of energy for Brazil?

The Amazon rainforest is an internationally recognized epicenter of biodiversity. Countless campaigns to stop the cutting and burning these rainforests have fallen on deaf ears. Now the Brazilian government plans to build what would be the world's 3rd largest dam [1] on the beautiful and ancient Amazon River. The Belo Monte project would span the Xingu River with 3 different dams: 233MW Pimental, 233MW Bela Vista, and 11,000MW Belo Monte. In addition, two artificial canals must be built to divert the river, which together will span more area than the Panama Canal.

These dams will have a myriad of negative impacts on the local environment. Construction of the dam will cause about 400-640 sq km land upstream to become flooded for a reservoir - an area equal to the size of Chicago. The town of Altamira will be flooded as well as countless acres that house the region's tribal populations. The impact on biodiversity includes 6-8 species of fish endemic to the Amazon River that will likely go extinct as well as a 2% decrease in the total forested area of the Amazon rainforest.

Organisms endangered by the construction of Belo Monte cannot verbalize their traumatic destruction of their ecosystem, but the indigenous people of the Amazon can; they are currently protesting the construction of the Belo Monte project through an "occupy" movement.

Belo Monte project is the first of many dam projects planned for the Brazilian portion of the Amazon River. Do these indigenous people have a right to decide what happens to their ancestral homeland? Or is the Brazilian government in the right by providing power for the majority of their country? Will the Belo Monte become the Belo "Muerte" dam (aka dam of death)?

May 14 2013:
Hello all,
I think many great points were covered in this conversation so I am not going to repeat arguments. But I do think there are some crucial things we have to think about here. First, Brazil has been playing a dangerous game of doing one thing and then manipulating numbers to seem like a different thing. Our gov claims that inflation is under control when we know it is not, but they manipulate number to look that way (Financial Times has an article on this). The same happens to the environment; Gov swears that impacts of Belo Monte are minor both to biodiversity and to indigenous people, while any minimally informed person knows this is a blunt lie. There is a concern to play good guys for the international community while doing the oposite here. So yes, Belo Monte will have a major impact. Another issue is why it is being built there. Of course we need progress and energy, but it is a trade here. Energy for the population and some environmental impact? May be ok. However, in this case, it is not energy for rural communities, it is for minning industries. And not a minor environmental impact, it is huge, and plus the social impact. Do we really want to make this choice?
Thirdly, the social impacts are not just the direct ones. The construction itself brought approx 28 thousand workers to an otherwise small town. Just see what happened to Tucurui after they had a hydroeletric powerplant built there. Huge unemployment after construction was over, not enough schools and hospitals, diseases and pregnant teenagers. Also, look at Brazil´s wastes on old transmition lines. Some say it is around 50% of the production. Lastly, let´s just look at who is behind this billion dollar contract. Oddly enough the same companies who fund political campaigns and paid (and have been paying) travels to politicians and much more. This is just an economic game for them. They helped put politicians on power, now they get there share.This is much more than just energy needs.

May 15 2013:
The whole thing seems more like a world epidemic where our paradigm needs a drastic shift. It also reminds me of the problems going on between organizations and the Japanese government over whaling.
I think projects like this dam stress the importance of placing a monetary value on ecosystem services. There is a lot of stigma surrounding this kind of thing, but it may be the only way to make an impact. Maybe the Brazilian government should be charged for the ecosystem services they destroy.

May 15 2013:
Thanks for the insight, Juliana!
I was wondering if you could maybe tell us more about what kind of attention this issue is getting locally within Brazil? Is public opinion leaning one way or another, or is there more of an even split? Also how much attention is it getting? Is this something that is being discussed by major news outlets regularly or is it being willfully ignored?

May 14 2013:
Eugene ourselves, most of our electricity power is so "clean" and cheap because of hyropower from BPA. However, We heard too much stories about hyrdopower and its impact on biodiversity. In the high biodiversity and species dynamic area such as Amazon forest. I can not image what would happen if Belo Monte dam project get built. Haven't we learned enough from past lessons? Three Gorges Dam which caused many old historical buildings and statues disappeared in China. Moreover, the dam caused 57% of plant species endangered and deforestation (Wu,2003). Another recent research about dam building activities in India also showed that "almost 90% of the Himalayan valleys would be affected by dam building and that 27% of these dams would affect dense forests with unique biodiversity." (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130117105659.htm)

Brazil does have large potential to design a scalable renewable energy, such as wind and solar. Brazil has the cheapest and successful wind energy in the world however it is not stable and they have to use coal-fired power plant to achieve stable energy in grid system. If they would invest more money on transmit full energy generated by wind and store them. Also, postponed the Belo Monte Dam project after complete and understand the full research of impacts on biodiversity and indigenous tribes.

Brazil is hosting 2 largest world sport event in 2014 and 2016. This might be the reasons they are highly desired to build a huge hyropower plant to sustain the energy usage. However, maybe building a more energy efficient stadiums and well-planed city transportation would be better than building a monster that will affect millions of people and species?

May 14 2013:
I agree Vesta, as the attached video mentioned, Brazil could potentially reduce their energy demand by ~40% by 2020 if they focused on more energy efficiency. This switch alone would be able to account for the energy produced by 14 Belo Monte dam complexes. The Belo Monte Dam project alone racks up a massive 17 billion dollars for the entirety of the complex. If focused on more renewable energy, like the recent development in solar power, I think that Brazil could potentially negate the need for the construction of the Belo Monte Dam Complex. This new solar power breakthrough embeds voltaic cells on thin polymer plastic. These solar panels are effectively light, and easily maneuverable making them an excellent incorporation into isolated areas. They can also be used to power electronics and automobiles reducing both the demand for energy and the carbon emissions produced by fossil fuels. If even a small amount of the budget from the Belo Monte Dam project was diverted to green research projects such as this, great leaps can be made to neutralize the need for the dam complex.

May 14 2013:
Yes! Definitely, more green research than complicated Dam project. That is so awesome solar panels are light and easy to use in daily life. It seems generating on site energy it should be implanted more into the design and build environment. :)

May 14 2013:
Vesta, you make a really good point about Brazil hosting the world cup and Olympics in the coming years. I think that if the indigenous peoples of the region are able to use that increased global exposure to spread their message it would greatly benefit their cause. As one of the members of the exclusive G-20 "club" it is clear that Brazil is a major emerging power in the world today, and as such is most likely very sensitive about issues regarding their international perception. Them disregarding the rights of the indigenous peoples living in the Amazon would be quite the black mark if picked up on by major news media outlets. The point being, I think there is still hope that the construction of this ill-advised dam can be averted.
This would be best done though if the Brazilian government was aware of the benefit in investing in energy strategies like the ones posed above by Mario which would not just save them money, but also make them out to be an extremely progressive nation. In the end I think that's the best bet at alleviating this situation, playing up the international relations angle.

May 14 2013:
Exactly Erik, I totally agree with you. If this dam get postponed this year. Next year people from all over the world will be in Brazil and support the indigenous people and Amazon rain forest. And as you said, this will be great opportunity for them to gain support from international community. If Brazilian government can weight the consequences of short-term and long term benefits on tourism, green energy technology and good reputation for their country. I believe there will be better way than building this project!

May 14 2013:
Another great point made by Vesta is the fact that wind energy, although renewable, can probably not support the extractive industries that will be otherwise powered by the Belo Monte dam. The necessary energy to power the nearby mining industry seems to exceed the energy that can be provided by renewables, which makes me think that the Brazilian government should reduce the number of allowed mines in the Para state. Mines could either be reduced in total number or just moved to different areas around Brazil. This could potentially reduce losses to biological diversity as more clean energy would be used to power "dirty" industry.

May 14 2013:
An article was just published today about an indigenous group that is installing wind turbines themselves to prove to the Brazilian government that wind power is a viable alternative to hydroelectric dams. Here is a great quote from the article:

"Key to this is that the Makuxi installed the turbines themselves, so they know the technology and can fix it if it goes wrong. Other similar projects that use solar power have struggled because, unsurprisingly, giving people technology they don't fully understand leaves them unable to repair it when it breaks. Many tribal communities living in the Amazon region are excellent candidates for solar power on paper, but a combination of governmental disinterest and improper NGO and development implementation has scuppered its adoption."

This is a fantastic example of human agency. It's easy to talk about issues like this in terms of who is doing what to indigenous peoples, but between the "occupy" movement and building wind turbines, the indigenous people of the Amazon have displayed their agency clearly and strongly.

May 14 2013:
What a great article. The Belo Monte Dam project is an incredible anecdote for describing the energy paradox that is occurring across the globe. If the indigenous groups can overcome the government, this would be a rare and important defeat. The following quote is especially exciting to me:

"In February, the Indigenous Council of Roraima, the Socioenvironmental Institute and the Federal University of Maranhão worked together to install three wind turbines in the territory to measure wind speeds over the course of a year, and verify the viability of wind power as an alternative to hydroelectricity."

If Brazil can identify wind energy as being just as productive as hydro, then perhaps they may serve as a model for the rest of the world, which currently searches for energy sources.

May 14 2013:
This could be especially powerful when you take into account the article that Chelsea posted below, which says that with reduced precipitation from deforestation, the dam may only produce a quarter of the energy that was originally projected.

May 14 2013:
It seems like the government would be excited by the possibility of having to make just an initial investment (technology and possible instruction on how it works and how to fix it), while leaving upkeep and repairs to the local populations. This would lower their costs, lower risks to local ecosystems, and prevent the displacement of thousands of people.

May 14 2013:
Up until April 2013 at least 800,000 dams have been constructed worldwide. Dams can provide positive and negative benefits to the nearby communities and ecosystems in which they reside. Dams deliver clean energy, water storage and the ability to control floods. Given the right implementation and location dams can have hugely positive effects for a society and have low operational costs. Although some dams can bring positive changes upon construction the plan to build the Belo Monte Dam is a very poor decision. Building a dam in the heart of the Amazon creates huge ecosystem destruction and massive land change. An estimated 85% of Brazils electrical energy that is produced comes from renewable hydroelectric dams throughout the country. Although energy independence is key for a country, the addition of the Belo Monte dam would cause massive environmental disturbance. This dam would affect local animals and the Bacajá Indigenous area by redirecting water due to flooding and reservoir location. Redirecting such great water volumes from the natural geographical inclination will either, strip land areas of water or over saturate them. Droughts, floods, deforestation, redistribution of species and displacement of indigenous species are all expected if the dam is completed. Dam completion would negatively affect many biomes and trophic levels at a magnitude never seen before in the Amazon basin. I believe alternative energy strategies could be implemented in Brazil to meet its energy needs without destroying the amazon basin. Solar, wind and tidal renewable energy strategies all could create renewable energy without impacting the environment in such a drastic way. Only through listening to the indigenous people can the government make a decision that both benefits the people and the growth of the country.

May 15 2013:
I also think alternative energy strategies that don't impact the environment so severely need to be implemented in Brazil. But an interesting problem comes up when choosing an energy source that has the lest affect on the environment. What do we designate as "acceptable"? This goes back to your TED conversation about renewable energy sources. Wind turbines kill 573,000 birds a year in the US alone according to the Associated Press (1). Imagine the effect on the numerous tropical and endemic birds in the amazon basin. Solar power doesn't harm the environment directly, but the production of PV cells requires toxic and carcinogenic materials such Arsenic and polysilicone. Although we dont know much about the environmental impact of tidal power, we can learn from similar technologies such as conventional hydropower and wind power that tidal power will also have negative effects on the environment. With that said, how do we determine what degree of impact is acceptable? Do we choose a number that we determine is an acceptable amount of species lost per year? Or some other measure of species loss? Its difficult to say which form of renewable energy is the best alternative. Maybe there are certain strategies that have less impact in certain types of environments. Hydroelectric dams in the Amazon does however have too great of an impact on the environment to be deemed "acceptable".

May 14 2013:
I am personally against this dam, but we must also think of the international problems it creates by taking an active approach to the construction. Is it really in our right to demand certain things from the Brazilian Government in regards to how they want to run their own country? Given the fact that the environment is the world's responsibility and we should all be doing our part in trying to conserve it, but where do we draw the line in international policy. As other comments said, Brazil is trying to industrialize their country and by industrializing, something has to be given but to what extend is debatable. However, what right does the U.S. have to demand certain protocols of other nations. I personally don't believe that the US is the best "outstanding" example of environmental protection. This can be said for almost, if not all, nations worldwide because we all have our own problems.

May 14 2013:
I believe it goes beyond allowing Brazil to run their own country. With the CO2 levels as high as they are and with the amount of pollution in the world it becomes everyones problem when something like the Belo Monte Dam is about to be constructed. We cannot afford to lose such a valuable ecosystem. And with the methane emissions that will be produced and emitted into the atmosphere I think that this becomes everyones problem.

May 15 2013:
I think Robby has a good point. The U.S. has a bad reputation, especially in South America, for manipulating political powers and exploiting resources. We are also among the highest per capita energy consumers in the world, and therefor have little room to criticize. In my experience traveling through Latin America, I was faced with this hypocrisy, the way we Americans want to solve poorer countries problems, fix their corrupt governments, and educate their children, but we are less likely to look at our own habitat destruction, bad education, corruption. Maybe it is easier for people to deal with problems that are vague and far off.

That said, the Belo Monte dam is going to have a devastating effect on an area of high biological and cultural significance, and I think it is great that there is resistance, and that people all over the world are showing concern. I just wonder how effective it is to sign online petitions, and donate money. I dare say that this conversation is a waste of time unless it leads to any real action from some of it's participants. I feel that our potential to protect and benefit an environment goes down in proportion to our distance from that environment. I know that each of us can dramatically improve a portion of the Willamette river if we chose to, be it through eradicating invasives, or fighting riverfront construction. For some reason it is easier for us to focus on problems in Brazil.

May 15 2013:
As much as the USA wants to fix everyone else's problems when we should really focus on fixing our own problems. In that same sense, Brazil is going to be the only country that has the final say in situation such as this one. Unless, does the involved have to be global uproar? UN involvement? At what point can a government be persuaded to change on their own?

May 15 2013:
I definitely agree that this goes, or at least it should go, beyond Brazil governing themselves. Times are changing, and I think its time to start viewing all people as one instead of being separated amongst nations. These are big issues at hand, and regardless of what people think, it will effect everyone. This is everyone problem. People can't continue to sit on their asses and watch while people ignorantly destroy precious ecosystems.

May 15 2013:
I agree that individually countries have no say in how other countries operate. I think the bigger question to ask is if the construction of dams and power plants is a governmental thing or a global population thing. I think that if a government wants to do something that would have a large effect as the Belo Monte dam would, then the country should have to go through a larger group that has more in mind than money. The United Nations exists for a reason. It deals more with humanitarian issues, but has no real power behind it besides enforcing trade sanctions. Could the United Nations be the only way to scuttle this project or is there a better way?

May 15 2013:
I think that is a good idea. Individual countries cannot dictate what another country decides to do. But, there should be a global law or procedure for things such as this that have to get approved by a higher group. This is something that is not only going to impact Brazil.

May 14 2013:
This isn't only an issue in brazil, China also plans to build a series of 13 hydro-electric dams in China's last free flowing river, the Salween a.k.a. Thanlwin. The project will supposedly displace about 40,000 people and submerge 20 miles of land. I believe these questions apply for all rivers being threatened by plans to build major hydroelectric dams.

May 14 2013:
In an article from Scientific American, they discuss the damming options on the Yangtze River. "There are 338 kinds of freshwater fish in the Yangtze River and the 162 of them are endemic to the river. It seems obvious that many or all of them could be impacted by a dam in the middle of the reserve." The Xiaonanhai Dam will be built in the middle of the Upper Yangtze Native and Rare Fish Reserve.

Wow, and we thought the Amazon has it bad. Imagine what this will do to China's native fish species. It's absolutely amazing how these huge dam projects are being undertaken and rarely do we hear them publicized. How many other countries are doing the same as Brazil and China? And even if there are, is there a way to make them change their minds about destroying biodiversity for energy generation?

May 14 2013:
It's amazing to me that is this going on in Brazil and yet this is the first I have heard of it! The fact that China may be headed the same direction is really scary. It's always easier to see and except quick reward for choices that are made but the consequences are not considered until it is too late. Unfortunately money talks and holds a lot of power in our world even if it hurts us in the long run.

May 14 2013:
It appears that nothing stands in the way of progress. Not world protest, not biodiversity, scientific scrutiny, not rainforest...

Came across this bit while reading about Itaipu dam on the border of Brazil and Paraguay. This dam was built in the 70s and 80s. It is extremely efficient and is considered one of the 7 wonders of the modern world, BUUUT......

"When construction of the dam began, approximately 10,000 families living beside the Paraná River were displaced.[11]
The world's largest waterfall by volume, the Guaíra Falls were drowned by the newly formed Itaipu reservoir. The Brazilian government liquidated the Guaíra Falls National Park, and dynamited the submerged rock face where the falls had been, facilitating safer navigation, thus eliminating the possibility of restoring the falls in the future. A few months before the reservoir was filled, 80 people died when an overcrowded bridge overlooking the falls collapsed, as tourists sought a last glimpse of the falls."

May 14 2013:
In a report published in Nature Climate Change, Philip Fearnside, a leading Amazon scientist, explained that tropical dams are little more than green washing. He said that various mathematical errors had been made by electrical authorities when attempting to estimate the amount of greenhouse emissions from the dams. He described how dams constructed in tropical areas act as “methane factories,” especially during the first few decades after construction. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and has an even stronger impact on global warming than carbon dioxide. He went on to point out that these first few decades of heavy methane emissions correspond exactly to the narrow window of time we have to bring global warming under control in order to avert its worst effects.

A recent study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science concluded that deforestation may significantly decrease the hydroelectric potential of tropical rainforest regions. Deforestation can inhibit rainfall in tropical regions, decreasing precipitation by anywhere from 6 to 36 %. It was stated in the paper that this could potentially decrease the electrical output of the Belo Monte dam to just a quarter of its projected capacity.

As others have pointed out, there are many energy alternatives that Brazil can pursue, including wind and solar. Fearnside mentioned key areas where consumption could be reduced. For instance, the use of inefficient electric showerheads consumes 5% of the nation’s energy usage. Replacing electric showerheads with solar water heating would significantly reduce energy demands. Halting aluminum exports was also recommended. Aluminum mining is an energy-intensive process that is highly destructive to the environment, and, according to Fearnside, produces too few jobs for what it’s worth.

I think that the Brazilian government should carefully reconsider the science behind the issue and contemplate what it might be forecasting about their future energy security.

May 14 2013:
These links about the flawed dam analysis and reduced generating capacity due to lack of rainfall are very interesting. From other information I've read Brazil is basically looking for a very quick and 'cheap' way to produce a lot of power for increasing energy demands from a growing population and industrial sector. As a few other people have stated, the perception of this hydroelectric source as cheap is skewed because it fails to take into account (in terms of money) how valuable the ecosystem services offered by this extremely biodiverse region really are, in addition to indigenous land claims.

The perception of a massive increase in energy demand is also being misrepresented in terms of how much and to what extend energy will be needed. This is because Brazil is using a quick and dirty way to gather energy for what is in many ways an inefficient system of infrastructure and electronic products. While I do not know much about specific standards Brazil has in place related to energy efficiency, I do know that there is always more that can be done. The government should be looking for ways to make the current energy consumption as efficient as possible because increases in efficiency can provide the growing economic/manufacturing sectors with some leftover energy that is not being used (and otherwise would have been used). In terms of biodiversity, increases in efficiency can reduce some impacts of growing energy demand and many sources of efficiency would have a much less dramatic impact on biodiversity.

In the end I think it boils down to this: the government of Brazil should be looking to other sources of energy like wind/solar and increases in nationwide efficiency related to all sectors instead of spending $14.4 billion on one large project. Rather, the money should be invested in a myriad of different energy solutions, including research on new technologies, best practices, environmental impact, and efficiency.

May 14 2013:
An interesting question was posed in class today: Does Brazil have the "right" to build dams on the Amazon? This question is incredibly complicated to answer, because in my opinion there is no correct answer. Does a nation have a right to develop the infrastructure it feels it needs to provide electricity to its citizens? Most people would probably say yes. At the same time, it seems undeniably tragic that an incredible ecosystem that is unequaled on our planet would face such destruction. I wonder what influence other nations or organizations could exert on Brazil? Geopolitics is typically subject to the idea of sovereignty, and the believe that nations can do what they will with the land and natural resources within their borders. That said, I do not know how we can ignore the construction of a dam that would flood the homeland of numerous indigenous tribes.
Brazil is a nation that has been really emerging in recent decades as a major economic and political entity on the global stage, and its development has understandably led to rising demands for the cheapest electricity possible. Many people have brought up great points about the possible alternatives (e.g. wind, solar, etc) but what motivation is there for Brazil to invest in these more expensive technologies? We need to remember that every decision made by the government of a developing nation will be guided by economic realities. If we want to protect the Amazon, we need to figure out how alternative sources of energy can be made equally economically feasible.

May 14 2013:
Well said Alex, in an ealier comment, I linked an article that described a breakthrough in solar technology made by Brazlilian scientists. This was the incorporation of photo voltaic cells into thin sheet of plastic. The research and development that went into the production of this discovery was only $10 million, a fraction of the cost of the Belo Monte Dam Complex. While that's still a lot of money, the Dam project is projected around $17 billion. I think that if this $17 billion was diverted to the research and production of more projects like this one, the potential for cheaper alternatives would be very helpful in accounting for the energy demands of Brazil.

Your point regarding the entitlement to land is an excellent one. While biodiversity, and groups of people, will almost always be affected in most kinds of cleaner alternatives, I think that other alternatives will pose less of an adverse affect to wildlife than the Belo Monte.

May 14 2013:
I completely agree! This is a complicated issue but the bottom line is the country's economic needs. We can find an alternative manner to supply energy and some form of capital gain, the amazon ecosystem at risk could be saved. There needs to be an alternative to their energy needs that will meet these needs. The use of microalgae for energy might be an interesting alternative. Jonathan Trent gave a Ted talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_trent_energy_from_floating_algae_pods.html) that suggests using microalgae in waster water to create biofuels and sequester carbon dioxide. He calls his invention OMEGA, Offshore Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae. They us solar energy to grow, and the wave energy on the surface provides energy for mixing the algae, and the temperature is controlled by the surrounding water temperature. The algae that grow produce oxygen, biofuels, fertilizer, food other bi-algal products of interest. I wonder if this could be applied as a remedy to this situation.

May 14 2013:
I agree that there is no good answer to the question you posed. Natural resources at the scale of the amazon, and the ecosystem services they provide, have benefits far beyond national borders. Yet, coming from a nation that has exploited resources at home and abroad to the detriment of the global environment, I find it difficult to see the US imposing more stringent environmental standards on Brazil.

There are a few policy tools that could change the equation as it stands right now. One is to do as Mario suggests, and make the cost of alternate energy sources cheaper. That could happen through investment in technologies or through subsidies for "clean" energy (I think we've learned by now that there is no such thing as truly clean energy) either from Brazil or external financing institutions. Another option would be to internalize the externality, or put a price on the ecosystem services being lost. It seems unlikely that Brazil would impose this on itself, but the US could role model by beginning to internalize the cost of carbon in our economy.

Wouldn't it be incredible if international financial institutions like the World Bank used their financial power to encourage sustainable development? We have set ourselves up for a huge expansion of practices that degrade the environment. Developing countries very understandably want the quality of life experienced in first world countries, and the tools we've given them to accomplish this through Structural Adjustment Programs rely on a free market economy. So, with severely limited social safety nets and measures meant to encourage business, how can we expect anything else but exploitation of the environment and indigenous people? Of course in the name of development and bettering quality of life for everyone in the country. As is being discussed here though, the Amazon itself will be much more valuable in the long run than a dam that causes the release of large amounts of methane.

May 14 2013:
I agree. The economy decides what they can do. However, they need to consider other problems what they would face after that such as loss of ecosystem services and functions.They might pay more on those than building a dam?

May 14 2013:
Although it would be great if the construction of the dam could be stopped, it doesn't seem very likely. The dam's construction was momentarily halted in December of last year ue to the influence of a federal judge but it has since started up again.

I think the aim now should be to investigate ways to save some of the species and mitigate the damage done. It might be a good idea to start collecting species in the local habitat and transporting them to safer environments (maybe zoo's but hopefully other natural locations). Also, it would interesting to see if the dam's construction includes any fish passage ways that will enable fish to travel upstream to their natural breeding grounds. Fish ladders would be a good start but have they looked into any more advanced technologies?

May 14 2013:
I agree with you Ben. I think that unfortunately, Brazil will indeed go through with the construction of the Belo Monte Dam. While I think that trying to conserve current endemic species is absolutely critical while the occupy movement is currently in swing, there also needs to be some thought put into how to reduce the carbon monoxide emissions that will inevitably result from the decomposing vegetation. Not to mention the deforestation that will result which compounds the effects of the carbon emissions. And how to best accommodate all of the indigenous tribes that will invariably be affected.

May 15 2013:
I was also curious about the idea of fish ladders, and it seems that they are planning on constructing some kind of fish ladder system or other forms of passage for the local fish communities, but from the reading I've done it sounds like they won't make much of a difference. Fish ladders are very effective for really large dams because the fish simply can't make it that far up, but for smaller dams they can be more helpful. So I imagine that, if they end up using ladders, they won't really help to maintain the local fish populations due to the expected size of the Belo Monte Dam.

May 15 2013:
Those indigenous people absolutely have the right to protect their ancestral homeland. No one want to see the place where he live to be harmed. Constructing dams would definitely exerted bad influence on biodiversity and habitats in Amazon Rainforest. However; the huge benefits behind it drive the government to make that decision. So, in my opinion, it may be hard to stop dam construction. The best way to solve this problem maybe that government and indigenous resident representatives can communicate and come up with feasible ways. Actually I have no idea about the solution to this issue.

May 14 2013:
The part that I don't like is that the dam is going to be used to power huge industrial/manufacturing plants. I think if they are going to spend that much money on building a dam they might as well spend their money on a renewable resource that will have less impact on the environment and have a greater turn around for future energy needs. They can use solar power, wind turbines, or even tidal power. Why spend millions of dollars on something that is going to destroy our natural environment when there are other options for energy.

May 14 2013:
Continuing:
Two comments that didn´t fit in the previous post:
Belo Monte was estimated to custo approx 8 billion dollars and it is now at 14 billion dollars. It is a money machine and prices charged higher than market prices are just going down corruption drains.
Laslty, concerning the cost of renewable energies: I recently read somewhere that the only reason why oil based energy sources are so competitive is because they are heavily subsidized. If reweable sources received the smae kind of incentives, they would probably be very competitive as well.

May 14 2013:
The biggest problem with tropical dams is of course the release of the greenhouse gas methane, which holds in atmospheric heat 21 times better than carbon dioxide. Methane is a product of the anaerobic decay of plant matter that sinks to the bottom of the reservoir after flooding. This occurs because all the oxygen is used up at higher water levels. The release of methane doesn't decrease as time goes on because plant life returns and sinks to the bottom again because the flow of water is so slow. You can flood a smaller area to get the reservoir you need if you can manipulate mountaneous terrain, but on flat land you need quite a large area. The methane is released all along the waterway, making methane capturing devices cumbersome. However, people need energy one way or another to put it simply, and my first impression is to be ok with the project. It is very unfortunate that the tribes' lands will be flooded, but many people will benefit. Nevertheless I believe the displaced people should be compensated somehow. And dams despite their flaws do take the place of fossil fuels which are slightly worse.

May 14 2013:
Indigenous people in the Amazon definitely have the right to decide their ancestral homeland’s future and boycott the construction of Belo Monte project and future upstream dams. Since Brazilian government’s logic of how Belo Monte dam is necessary for providing electricity for all Brazilians, is actually based on several myths. First of all, Belo Monte will not provide “clean and renewable” energy as the project predicted, Belo Monte’s 668Km2 reservoir will flood 400Km2 of forest and big dams in tropic area will cause enormous emission of methane gas. Methane is 25 times more potent than CO2. Secondly, Belo Monte will become the most energy inefficient dams in Brazil, since during dry season it can only produce 10% of its 11233MW predicted capacity. What is more, not all the energy will power Brazilian families. Only 70% will be sold to the public, the rest 30% energy will be resold to energy-intensive industry, such as mining. The establishment of the dams actually increases mining expansion in the Amazon region, and will lead to vicious cycle in energy consumption. Mining also lead to other threats in biodiversity.
However, the definitive installation license of the dam was granted in June 2011 and the construction seems to move onto accelerating phase. We should aim to think up of backup plan to decrease the threat of the mega-dam to biodiversity, if the program cannot be stopped. For instance, Stop future construction of upstream dams; Establish laws to strictly regulate hydroelectricity energy use in order to avoid waste or further pollution, such as mining threats; Establish conservation program for threatened species, such as captive breeding, zoos. Compute the overall risks of other energy alternatives and find out the cleanest one.
The “Amazon Watch” is a major website for supporting indigenous people and protecting Amazon region, you can find much more valuable information there and take action to tell the government that the Amazon is not for sale. http://amazonwatch.org/

May 14 2013:
Decomposition of plant materials under anaerobic (without oxygen) conditions produces methane. The 400 square kilometers of forest flooded by the dam will create a prime environment for this type of decomposition.

May 14 2013:
I understand the Brazilian government's need to provide electricity for its citizens, but building the Belo Monte Dam definitely does not seem like the right way to achieve this. While the dam is expected to alleviate the electricity crisis in Brazil, it also comes with many negative consequences that probably can't be reversed. The amazon rainforest is home to ecosystems with some of the highest biodiversity in the world, and I constantly hear the phrase "save the rainforest," so I'm confused why the Brazilian government would be willing to destroy such important habitats.

If the dam is constructed, it will certain cause decreases in the number of aquatic species as well as land species. The indigenous people who inhabit this area of the forest will be greatly affected by these changes, since they rely on these resources to survive. This will force these indigenous people to be displaced from their homes and moved to new habitats. Moreover, the entry of many immigrants to this area during the construction of the dam can bring diseases to the indigenous people, putting their lives at risk because they have little resistance to outside diseases. I think that the indigenous people absolutely should have a say in what happens to their homeland. However, I'm not sure about Brazil, but I know in many other Latin American countries, the indigenous people are treated with a lot of discrimination and have little to no influence in the governmental issues of their countries.

May 15 2013:
It really saddens me to begin to consider the biological diversity that will be lost through this project. I think the consequences of the dam are only a portion of what will ensue. Going one step further concerning the introduction of immigrants, bringing diseases is just the beginning. As people relocate to the area, roads will pave the way for complete exploitation and disturbance of the once secluded Amazon area. From clearing areas for timber/agriculture, hunting (introduction of guns for hunting), and pollutants, the complex ecosystem will be inevitably be dismantled.

May 14 2013:
Dams will most certainly be an amazing source of energy for Brazil; the small amount of intermittency provided by rivers ensures optimal peak energy service. This is very helpful for Brazil’s growing economy. Is it the best intention for Brazil to do this? From an economic stand point, yes. From a social standpoint, no. The externalities and other social damages are unaccounted for, leaving the diverse habitats fragmented and potentially uninhabitable by terrestrial species.

It does beg the question: Are we allowed to potentially slow the growth of Brazil? From Brazil’s standpoint they are a growing economy, aspiring to become a 1st world country. Because of this, the demands for power must be met. This may include using the cheapest electricity source like any economy does. Many states in the U.S. rely on coal-fire plants to meet their energy needs. Yet, do we have other countries coming into our economic affairs?

But it also begs on another question: is it ethical to destroy a diverse habitat in the Amazon? I personally think it isn’t. Growth must controlled and not just managed. The rate of Brazil’s growth is putting immense strain on the neighboring habitats and by reducing biodiversity and promoting fragmented, less diverse habitats. This can put many species at risk for extinction.

At what point do we owe it to preserve nature? In the recent course of events, it appears it will happen when we need it most.

May 14 2013:
You make a great point about questioning the rate of growth and the point that our modern society needs to put nature above the booming expansion of infrastructure. The earth is something shared between all people and all organisms, the Dali Lama spoke about that while he was here at the U of O. At what point do we need to stop massacring natural diversity epicenters and treat them as keystone ecosystems?

A quick bit of info about Brazil's dams. The Belo Monte Dam project was build to use what is called "run-of-river" damming. This utilizes a relatively smaller reservoir than the traditional types of dams. This might sound good, but when the reservoir is still the size of Chicago, I think it's still more harm than good. Anyway, using this smaller reservoir dam relies heavily on the amount of rain fall each year. This last year Brazil's reservoirs finished at just 30.5% of capacity. This means that these dams aren't actually running at full capacity! The Belo Monte project will produce only 10% of its 11,233 MW installed energy generating capacity during the 3-5 month-long dry season, an average of only 4,462 MW throughout the year, or 39% of its nominal capacity.

May 14 2013:
I agree that allowing for economic autonomy is of utmost importance in maintaining international relationships. But that said, I find it hard to believe the energy produced by a hydroelectric dam system on the Amazon could out weight the value of its ecosystem services. Provided links above are all clearly one sided, against dam construction; but even still, if we considered best case scenarios, I don't know if the numbers could match up.

And again inline with the Dali Lama's view of earth shared by all humanity and the fact we now live in a global community, should the rest of the world be trying to step in (contrary to my previous statement), giving Brazil some economic incentive not to construct the Belo Monte Dam?

May 14 2013:
I too find it very difficult to understand how this dam provides more benefits than ecosystem services. I personally feel that many countries should work together rather than compete with one another. We are a globalized society, yet our perception is blinding reality.

I know many countries could work together to subsidize Brazil, and other developing nations, with clean energy through the use of offsets, however, fraudulent offsets are a real problem in the world of carbon sequestration.

May 15 2013:
I think its very interesting that you bring up social vs economic sides to the belomonte dam. Economically the dam will bring in a lot of money and yes I agree help with the growing economy. But at what cost? To play devils advocate, who are we do to tell Brazil what they can and can’t do in their own country? Did anyone come into our country telling us to stop the environmental atrocities that have been committed here? That being said, if someone had come in and stopped us im sure many of our environmental issues could have been avoided.
I think the most crucial aspect of this debate is how to get the Brazilian government to understand the horrible consequences of the dam construction. It seems like our ethical duty to try our hardest to persuade the government to halt construction. At the very least we should try to implement innovative ideas into the dam that could help curb the ecological side effects. How can this be said to the government? How can it be explained to the government the severe costs of going through with dam construction when so many other countries have done similar atrocities and continue to do them everyday?

May 15 2013:
I was also thinking about the social aspect of this issue and the fact that the U.S. uses about 25% of the world's fossil fuel resources when we only have 5% of the world population, so who are we to dictate environmental degradation opinions when we have so much work to do in our own efforts. I'm not sure if trying to convince the government will necessarily work because the goal of the project is money, and in a capitalist market that rules everything. I think it's important to look at other countries when it comes to massive projects of habitat destruction, but if we want to be taken seriously we need to address the issues in our own country and with our own government as well.

May 14 2013:
One of the more surprising things on this topic for me was that when we discussed this topic in class it was the first that I had heard about it. We grew up in the generation of "save the rain forest" and yet this issue had someone evaded my knowledge until now. I may not follow all environmental problems of the world religiously but I like to think I am relatively well informed about most environmental issues. For the impact these dams would have on the ecosystem I don't understand why it has not received attention of the environmental community for it to be common knowledge. There are great videos, articles, and blogs about this topic that are definitely helping to spread the word through social media. I wonder if it would help if some of the organizations that fight against deforestation in the Amazon would get on board with the native people to get this message out there. The potential loss of species and displacement of people is staggering and I feel that if more people knew there would be a bigger protest globally. Thank you Katrina for bringing this topic to out attention!

May 14 2013:
Part (1/2)
What a great, current, and relevant topic Katrina! I think that spreading awareness and starting discussions about projects such as the Belo Monte Dam are much needed, and will have such expansive consequences, that it is something people all over the world need to be aware of.
The interplay between the conservation/destruction of biodiversity, its interactions with indigenous people, as well as the motivating political and economic factors is something that I think about a lot and read about on a daily basis. As we have learned, ecosystems are complex webs of interacting elements, and changing one aspect can have a huge affect. This project itself will not only directly affect the biodiversity of the area but will also lead to a myriad of indirect affects that together, in my opinion will be devastating to the world.
The leading cause of the biodiversity loss today and in the future is climate change. Climate change encompasses and is fueled by the many ecological changes that are occurring on our planet today as a result of human activity. Magdoff and Foster in their book What Every Environmentalist Needs To Know about Capitalism explain that climate change acts as a set of tipping points that, when reached, are extremely difficult to recover from and can lead to permanent damage or change of an ecosystem. Unfortunately the world is already very close to many of those tipping points that have been estimated by scientists because we simply aren’t doing much to ameliorate the situation. Initiatives to curve climate change, for example the cap and trade system for fossil fuels, are fronts put up that make people think that something is being done about the issue while emissions aren’t actually decreasing; If anything, they are increasing. As less developed countries continue to develop following the “American” model, increasing their consumption, their use of fossil fuels, and exploiting their resources beyond recovery we will surely reach those tipping

May 14 2013:
Before this TEDconversation i had no idea that this was going on in Brazil, which is shocking since this is a huge issue. From the research i have done on my own about it i haven't found a benefit to putting the Belo Monte Dam into the Amazon. With the evidence that has been provided to the government about the hundreds of negative affects this dam will cause not only the ecosystem but the local human population its hard to believe that the government is doing this for any other reason then big money. The power from these hydro plants will go to support the mining operations which will only cause more destruction to the Amazon. At the end of the youtube video they discussed all the affective ways the government could decrease there energy use, increase there renewable energy and create tons of jobs to stimulate the economy. This dam is a serious problem that needs to be focused on. Losing endemic species and land that helps local indigenous tribes will have devastating affects, that will have irreversible consequences.

May 14 2013:
In one documentary they talk about the business investments that are driving the construction of the dam. This includes Brazil signing large contracts with foreign business suppliers for materials to build the Belo Monte project. The video also suggests that the pressure from international interests are a driving factor of why Brazil chose to build the dam instead of investing in other energy options. This documentary has a lot of interviews with the indigenous people including Chief Raoni Metuktire and his successor Megaron Txucarramãe. It's a full length movie, but very interesting.

May 14 2013:
I feel the same way, I never knew this was going on or heard anything about the Belo Monte Dam project until this discussion. It is scary how much control the government can have. It seriously blows my mind that this type of thing can even be considered when so many thousands of people will be removed from their homes, and homeland flooded or dried up, as well as all the impacts it is going to have on the environment. Money really is the source of all evil :(

May 14 2013:
Brazils need for power is predicted to go up by 6000MW a year for the next ten years. With the energy sources it has in place it will not be able to meet this need. So it is going to have to do something to get this energy. Brazil has many choices, offshore oil and gas, hydropower, soar and wind, sugarcane bagasses as well as shale gas. All of which have pros and cons. Because of Brazils vast diversity it has many choices in which way it would like to go to harness energy. It is interesting that they seem to have chosen hydropower. With any choice they make biodiversity will be lost but are they making the best choice? Seems they are going forward with this regardless. Not scientific but really good a recent article from The Economist below which goes into depth about the impact on the native people in which Brazil plans to pay people for migration and compensation. However is that right?

May 14 2013:
Interesting article, and good point that no matter which energy source Brazil chooses to pursue, biodiversity will inevitably be affected. The effects upon biodiversity that the Belo Monte Dam (and all its related structures) will cause sounds like it could be quite massive - the video we watched said 10 species just in the Big Bend alone! However, since I don't think Brazil will consider simply not providing power to all of its people as an option, they will have to find some other major energy source. The article was saying how Brazil has one of the greatest capacities of any country in the world to harness wind and solar energy. I don't know if Brazil could satisfy its power needs completely with wind and solar power (probably not), but a major pro of this option is that it wouldn't force indigenous people from their homes or destroy their livelihoods. Yes, wind and solar would also have negative effects on biodiversity, but at least these peoples' lives would not be disrupted. Another idea I had came from an article I read in the local newspaper yesterday, which described how popular American cars produced for the growing Brazilian auto market are less safe and are much less efficient than the same cars produced for US and European markets. Perhaps if Brazil tightened its regulations on fuel efficiency of vehicles, this could help bring down its fuel and power needs as well?

May 14 2013:
I completely agree about using wind and solar as a better alternative. And agree it probably isn't enough to power all of their needs. A compromise would be nice to see maybe using wind, solar and hydropower all together. Using a different dam not nearly as massive and where it would not cause as much damage as the purposed dam would at the big bend. That to me might be ideal.

May 14 2013:
Wind and solar are great, biologically-sound alternatives to hydroelectric dams, but they would likely not provide enough energy to power the local, intensive mining industry in the Para state of Brazil. Another con of these two harmless energy sources is the idea that they require more care and labor than hydropower, so the area could potentially be disturbed by urbanization, which causes immense losses to biological diversity.

I think Dan's idea of having more, smaller dams could potentially cause as much damage as one larger dam. We need to discover more sources of energy that can provide the necessary energy needed for the region without causes permanent damage to local plant, animal, and indigenous communities.